Official Report 299KB pdf
Adults with Learning Difficulties <br />(Provision of Services) (PE743)<br />“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (Implementation) (PE822)
“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (Findings) (PE881)
The next item is consideration of current petitions. The first three petitions have been broadly put together, but I recognise that there are differences between them. The petitions are PE743, PE822 and PE881. Essentially, they all relate to "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning difficulties", which the former Government adopted as its policy in this area. Its broad principles are still part of the new Government's strategy. The petitions call for a number of options around the implementation of "The same as you?", such as ensuring that people with learning disabilities are given the support to live at home like anyone else, and urging a review of services to ensure that those with profound and complex needs are properly cared for.
Not directly.
I thought you were nodding agreement with me, so I was going to let you in. Do committee members have any strong views on how we should deal with the petitions?
There is a big problem nationally because "The same as you?" has not been implemented equally across the board. The fact that different local authorities have different criteria with regard to what should be provided under "The same as you?" is causing some educational establishments considerable difficulty. Certain establishments within the same local authority area are treating the programme in a different way to other establishments and we must be very sure about what is being proposed so that we have a level playing field in all local authorities.
Although the original petition has been around since 2004, there have been changes to local authority funding and it might be worth while asking the Scottish Government about the proportion of funding that will be allocated under the concordat to the services highlighted in the petitions.
That is an important point. Another issue is the timescale that we are talking about here. "The same as you?", which was a commitment made by the previous Government that is being continued under this Government, is all about local service redesign for individuals with disabilities and the amount of ownership that those people have. Having been involved with the policy at ministerial level, I realise that, as with the issues raised in the previous petition, when you try to drive these things forward you have to deal with tons of other things, and I do not think that we have got the approach absolutely right yet.
Should we put the ball in the Government's court and, instead of presuming that we know the answers to these questions, ask when it can tell us something substantive about its review of the local authority outcome agreements?
I think that we should be blunter than that. With these issues, unless you chap the door loudly, no one will hear you knocking. The fact is that the first of these petitions has been in the system since 2004 and the issue is still before us. We want to see what progress has been made. There are tons of things that should have been done, but have not. We are all culpable. No matter whether we are working at a local or national level, we are all responsible for dealing with these issues.
We can give it a copy for information.
We should draw the matter to its attention. It might be interpreted as an antagonistic move, but that particular committee should be made aware of the situation.
Which committee are we talking about?
I would have thought that it would be the Health and Sport Committee, but we can let the clerks worry about that. Those are the kinds of questions that they anguish over in the night.
Family Law (PE944)
PE944, by Gary Strachan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate why, under Scottish law, there is no presumption of equal access to children or equal residence for children with both parents after separation, and to investigate bias against fathers as equal parents in the court system, why contact orders are not enforced and why parental responsibilities and rights are ignored by medical, welfare and government institutions to children's detriment.
The issue is of considerable personal interest. It is also of interest to several of my constituents. All that we can probably do is to write to the Scottish Government to remind it that there is a real issue here and to ask it what it is doing. Point (c) in the letter from the Government, which refers to the investigation into why contact orders are not enforced, is a bone of considerable contention. Although I understand why the research exercise was not procured—I know that there are ways of doing things and that in this case they did not quite work—quite a number of folk out there are anxious for progress on the issue. The excuse may be fine, but excuses will not do. We have to find a way forward and we should be encouraging the Government to do that.
That is a helpful suggestion. We have all got caseload that shows up substantial anomalies in the court system, particularly on parental rights for men. Let us try to explore that. Does anyone have any other observations on the petition?
The strange thing is that if a court order is made for access for one or other parent and agreed and stipulated through the court, but is not adhered to or is violated, nothing happens. Why is that? If someone was in breach of any other kind of court order, they would be in Barlinnie tomorrow.
I have yet to confront that experience, John. Note the word "yet".
Sleep Apnoea (PE953)
PE953, from Ms Jean Gall, on behalf of the Scottish Association for Sleep Apnoea, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to increase awareness of sleep apnoea, to promote proper diagnosis and treatment and to provide sufficient resources to tackle the health problems that are associated with obstructive sleep apnoea. Do members have suggestions on how we should deal with the petition? It has been in the system for nearly two years, which is a lengthy period to be in the petitions structure.
It is a significant issue. I do not know how many road accidents and so on have been caused by someone falling asleep at the wheel because they suffer from the condition. I note that there is to be a review of Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network 73 in 2008-09. We need an update on how quickly those guidelines will be updated.
Do members want to close the petition or will we wait for the update? The Government is writing to all national health service boards to identify issues at a local level and to raise awareness of the needs of sufferers. Would Nanette Milne like to explore the issue further?
Within the past year, I have been informed by one constituent that things are not the same in all health boards—there is better provision in some than in others. I would like to know that they are all on an equal footing.
Will we pursue that issue and try to bring the petition back a bit more expeditiously once we get that information?
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (PE965)
PE965, by Dean Widd on behalf of Parent Project UK Muscular Dystrophy (Scotland), calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that sufficient funding and resources are available to ensure that the needs of people with muscular dystrophy are met.
A members' debate was held on this issue not so long ago, at which the minister made sympathetic noises.
This is another petition that has been in the system for nearly two years. We shall try to get a response from the Government quickly.
Swimming Pools (Investment) (PE966)<br />Leisure Facilities (PE990)
Community Sports Facilities (PE1041)
PE966, PE990 and PE1041 are mainly to do with community leisure facilities and investment in swimming pools. They have been in the system for a long time: the most recent goes back to this time last year, but one goes as far back as June 2005. We have many papers to consider; the petitioners have been lobbying at various levels, not only here at the Parliament.
If you refer them on, they will pass to the other committee.
Do members agree that the other committee would be the most appropriate one to deal with these petitions?
I do not disagree with that suggestion, but I am reading the last paragraph of a letter from one of the petitioners, which says:
There is an opportunity. A major inquiry into a policy area is being undertaken by a committee. Substantive issues that petitioners have raised might be dealt with there.
Plants (Complaints) (PE984)
PE984, by Colin Watson, on behalf of Scothedge, calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with the power to deal with complaints regarding vigorous growing trees, hedges, vines or other plants. I welcome Jamie Stone MSP, who is here because he has a particular interest in the subject. Members have the papers relating to the petition before them. Would Jamie like to say something? He has been patient with us this afternoon.
I thank you, convener, and the committee for allowing me to join you for this agenda item. The issue that the petition raises is not solely an urban phenomenon; it exists in my far-flung constituency as well, and my constituents are on to me about it—even those who live in the wee fishing village of Balintore. There is an element of frustration out there because we have been talking about the issue for so long and nothing has been done, although Scott Barrie, who is no longer an MSP, put in some laudable work to advance the situation.
I sympathise with Jamie Stone, my colleague from Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—a constituency that is substantially overgrown by trees. However, that is not the problem. I get complaints about the issue in my constituency of Ross, Skye and Inverness West, where neighbour disputes often develop because of high trees and hedges.
I challenge any local councillor to put their hand up and say that they have not met this problem over recent years. It does not matter where one is—these hedges seem to pop up, and they grow very quickly. I wonder whether we can check with the Government whether the matter can be dealt with by anything other than primary legislation. If it were made clear to us that, as a matter of law, the minister could do something useful through regulation, that would lay out clearly what we could do. If it is a matter of passing primary legislation, we need to encourage somebody—even if it is a member of the committee—to introduce a bill as soon as possible. There is a general feeling that we need legislation. However, if the responsible minister—whoever that may be—can address the problem through regulation, we must encourage him to do so. He will probably argue that the matter is being reviewed and will be dealt with in due course, but I would like an answer to my question if that is possible, please.
Okay. We have a couple of suggestions from committee members. We will keep the petition open and will explore some of the points that have been raised by the petitioner. Is that agreed?
Information Plaques (PE1012)
PE1012, by Frank Beattie, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to adopt a nationally co-ordinated and nationally funded scheme for marking people, events and places by erecting informative plaques at sites of local, regional, national or international importance. The petition is fairly straightforward, and I think that there will be broad consensus that we should write to the Government to suggest that it pull together individuals with an interest in the issues to see whether the idea is worth exploring. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable in our at least trying to open up that debate. Is that agreed?
Advice Agencies (Annual Monitoring) (PE1096)
PE1096, by William McCormack, on behalf of Dumfries Welfare Rights, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take action to ensure that all advice agencies in receipt of lottery or public funding exceeding £25,000 a year are subject to annual compulsory monitoring by specialist independent audit or peer review bodies to assess the standard and quality of the advice that is given.
I am content that what is in place at the moment is sufficient. To impose those conditions on any agency that receives more than £25,000—which is one person's salary—would mean monitoring every single person in the country who provides advice in one way or another. There is nothing to suggest that what is currently in place is not sufficient and adequate. I am happy for the petition to be closed.
Is that the view of committee members?
Public Sector Contracts (PE1097)
PE1097, also by William McCormack, on behalf of Dumfries Welfare Rights, seeks legislation—or enhanced enforcement of existing legislation—to make it an offence for any local authority or public sector body to award a contract with a value exceeding £25,000 without first adopting a competitive tendering and best value-based approach.
School Buses (Seat Belts) (PE1098)
PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat community council, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make provision for every school bus to be fitted with three-point seat belts for every school child passenger. I am sure that that is part of local authorities' best-value contracts, in relation to the provision of school buses. The petitioners have appeared in front of the committee, and we have subsequently received papers in response to some of our inquiries. Do members wish to take any further action on the petition?
This issue has probably affected a number of us—it has been raised with me in my constituency. We know that Moray Council, for instance, provides seat belts in buses. It would be interesting to ask the Scottish Government for its views on the position in Moray and what bearing that would have on other councils. Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People has made the interesting suggestion that there should be a children's rights impact assessment to examine whether not having such safety measures in some way infringes the rights of children.
We will explore the petition further in relation to the children's rights impact assessment. Moray Council has provided seat belts in all school buses, and it might be useful to find out what discussions are taking place within COSLA in relation to guidance on the issue.
Planning Applications (PE1101)
PE1101, by David Milne, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that all relevant planning policies and guidance are adhered to and to consider the circumstances under which Scottish ministers instruct local inquiries when planning applications, such as that for a housing and golf development at Balmedie, are considered.
I declare an interest, in that I have publicly expressed support for the petition. Beyond that, I think that the issue has been aired significantly both inside and outside the Parliament, and I question whether the committee can do anything further. I therefore suggest that we close the petition—if it is in order for me to do so, having said that I have an interest in the matter.
Okay. We will close the petition on the basis that a more appropriate committee has had a chance to explore the detail of the issues that it raises, although I understand that that committee arrived at a firm set of conclusions that not everybody was happy with.
Rural Post Offices (PE1102)
PE1102, by Bill Herd, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to assess the impact that the United Kingdom Government's recent announcement on the future of the post office network—concerning both sub-post offices and Crown post office relocation—will have on rural communities in Scotland such as Galashiels. Members have the clerk's paper in front of them, and the papers that we have received from the petitioner have also been made available. Do members have any comments to make on the petition?
Some kind of impact assessment needs to be made, and we must find out whether the Scottish Government is the most appropriate—or the only appropriate—body to approach to carry out that impact assessment. I am not certain about that; another body might be interested in carrying out an impact assessment. However, there is no doubt that there are many knock-on effects every time that a rural post office is closed. Many members of the community—especially older people, such as pensioners, and others who rely on post offices for a lot of services—might not have regular access to transport. That aspect and the impacts on those people need to be measured properly so that we have the full picture of how serious the situation is.
All members—whether they represent rural or urban areas—recognise the fact that a pretty difficult programme has been put forward. That is the best euphemism that I can find for the proposals.
An environmental impact assessment could be part of that process. One imagines that hundreds of extra car journeys will be necessary—for those who have cars—when a rural or small-town post office is closed.
I agree. A decision has been made by the Westminster Government that a certain number of post offices must close, and we must work within that to get the most appropriate outcome for Scotland. Many parts of rural Scotland will suffer significant deprivation as a result of that decision.
We are fighting the battle with both hands tied behind our back. Control of the post office network is outwith the Scottish Parliament's remit, but we see the havoc and devastation that the UK Government's decision is likely to cause and is already causing. Our electorate would expect their MSPs to continue the dialogue and try to retrieve as much as we possibly can.
As John Farquhar Munro has pointed out, we have both hands tied behind our back because of the numbers to be closed that have been set by the United Kingdom Government. Essex County Council recently decided to continue to support some post offices, and I believe that one Scottish local authority has taken that decision on board and is considering ways of retaining post office services in particular communities. It might be useful to find out about that. In particular, we should find out what that council is doing to retain post offices, and what services will still be provided. The Scottish example might be a better example than the Essex one to give local authorities in Scotland, COSLA and the Scottish Government. Scottish local authorities should be looking into the issue and taking decisions so that they can continue to support local post offices.
I was going to make much the same point. When Mr Swinney made his statement to Parliament, he spoke about innovative solutions to retain postal services, especially in rural areas.
Helpful suggestions have been made, and we should take them up with the Scottish Government in relation to the rural development programme and local authorities.
Violence against Women (PE1103)
PE1103, by Susan Moffat, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to prioritise the development of strategic work on violence against women by following the three Ps approach: active prevention of violence against women and children; adequate provision of quality support services for women and children; and appropriate and effective legal protection for women and children.
We should ask the Government for more detail on a number of issues raised by the petition. Scottish Women's Aid still has concerns about the spending review and the concordat, and about the impact that they will have on services. We should ask the Government for details on the action that it is taking.
We might also want to ask about the development of strategies and about the domestic abuse court, which has been debated in the chamber.
I suggest that we ask the Government how it will measure the results of its recently launched information campaign to tackle violence against women and children and whether it has been a success. It would be useful to find out how the Government plans to carry forward any assessment and whether it can furnish us with the results.
It would be important for the Government to give us details of what it is doing to educate children and young people about the issue. There was a recent members' debate about that, which is a key issue.
That is helpful. We will deal with those suggestions.
Wind Farm Developments (PE1104)
The final petition is PE1104, by Dixie Dean. At first, I thought that the petition was going to be about a commemorative plaque for the hat trick in the 1972 final—sometimes we wish for too much. In fact, the petition asks the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to consider the impact of mechanical vibrations that are transmitted down through wind turbine installations to peat, soils, invertebrates, fungi and bioaerosols, which lie at the base of the food chain, when it considers applications for onshore wind farms, and to commission research into the impact of such vibrations on such habitats and species.
Having read the papers, I found it quite interesting that, as one would perhaps have predicted, there are very different technical views on the possibilities and on the value—or otherwise—of the evidence. I hope that members will forgive me for not knowing what we can do with the petition. Does the Scottish Government have a chief scientist?
Yes.
In that case, should we write to the chief scientist—or the chief engineer or whoever—to ask him or her whether he or she has an opinion on the evidence that is in front of us, and whether the area is important? I do not think that we are qualified to judge the evidence, and I would not want to put anyone else under pressure.
Surely any problems would be highlighted by the environmental impact assessment that is required before planning consent is given.
Given my previous experience, I observe that you do not find problems that you do not look for and that you do not get answers to questions that you do not ask. If you are not looking for a problem in the soil, you will not find one. I am not convinced that there is a problem, but it is not for me to judge.
It is incumbent on the committee to ask the Government what considerations it will take on board in future plans for onshore wind farms to ensure that there is a full environmental impact assessment. Such an assessment should take into account the impact of vibration. Some of the submissions that we have received are quite interesting. We tend to forget the things that grow and live beneath the soil when we carry out environmental impact assessments. It would be useful if the committee could advise the Government that it should take on board the effect of vibration when it carries out such assessments. I know from my experience of industrial life that a number of things that have happened in industry were never assessed properly, with the result that, years later, we have to live with impacts on human life and other life. With the knowledge that we have, we should measure everything within our capability to ensure the future existence of subsoil life.
Are we happy to progress the petition on the basis of those comments and observations by members?
Previous
New Petitions